The Macro Insight

The Weekly Macro Recap: The AI Trade Just Sent Its First Real Bill

Macro Insight — Sun, 26 Jul 2026 20:24:38 GMT

Alphabet beat every number that mattered this week, and its stock still fell. Tesla posted record revenue, and lost 14.5% of its value in a single session. If you’ve been telling yourself the AI boom is just a story about growth, this week should change your mind. It’s now a story about the bill coming due, and Wall Street is starting to ask who’s actually going to pay it.

Subscribe now

This Week’s Big Picture

This week’s featured deep dive:

Why Private Markets Are Eating Public Markets

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

If you enjoy The Macro Insight, it would mean the world to me if you invited friends to subscribe and read with us. If you refer friends, you will receive benefits that give you special access to The Macro Insight.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

Why Private Markets Are Eating Public Markets

Macro Insight — Wed, 22 Jul 2026 21:20:17 GMT

Here’s an uncomfortable fact for anyone with a brokerage account. The most important companies built over the last two decades never listed a single share on an exchange, and increasingly, they never plan to. If you only invest through a 401(k) or a public index fund, you are structurally excluded from a huge and growing share of where economic value gets created.

That is not a fringe observation anymore. It’s the biggest structural shift in how capital gets allocated in the developed world, and most retail investors have no idea it’s happening under their feet.

Public markets are shrinking while private capital swells

The Weekly Macro Recap: Record Bank Profits, Falling Inflation, and a Market That Sold Off Anyway

Macro Insight — Sun, 19 Jul 2026 10:40:05 GMT

America’s banks just posted the best quarter in their history, the Fed chair spent two days trying not to say the word “hike,” and none of it mattered as much as a research paper out of Shanghai. This is the week the AI trade found out its moat might be made of paper. If your portfolio has any exposure to the semiconductor complex, what happened Friday deserves more attention than the CPI print that started the week.

This Week’s Big Picture

Markets spent the week digesting three collisions at once. On Tuesday, June CPI cooled to 3.5% year over year from May’s 4.2%, core inflation eased to 2.6%, and all five of America’s largest banks beat earnings estimates on the same morning, with JPMorgan posting the highest quarterly profit in US banking history. That should have been an unambiguous risk-on week.

Instead, two forces dragged it the other way. First, oil. President Trump reinstated the naval blockade on the Strait of Hormuz Tuesday, adding a 20% fee on cargo transiting the waterway that still carries roughly a quarter of the world’s seaborne crude. Brent jumped more than 13% on the week, touching the high $80s by Friday. Second, and more consequential for positioning, a Chinese AI lab reminded everyone that the trillion-dollar AI infrastructure bet rests on an assumption that may not hold.

New Fed Chair Kevin Warsh gave his first congressional testimony Tuesday and Wednesday, walking a careful line: cooler inflation is not “mission accomplished,” but he stopped short of committing to anything. Markets read it as dovish enough. Rate hike odds for the July 29 meeting fell to roughly 10%. September sits near 60%. The real story of the week wasn’t the Fed. It was the crack in the AI thesis.

Subscribe now

The Deep Dive: The Kimi Moment and the $700 Billion Bet

On Friday, Chinese startup Moonshot AI released Kimi K3, a 2.8 trillion parameter open-weight model, the largest of its kind ever released, and by most benchmark accounts trailing only Anthropic’s and OpenAI’s top offerings. It’s particularly strong at coding, the exact use case enterprises are paying premium prices for. Full weights land publicly on July 27.

The market’s reaction told you everything about how fragile sentiment has become. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index dropped into a bear market. Nvidia fell, AMD fell nearly 5%, Applied Materials dropped more than 5%. The semiconductor ETF SOXX logged its fifth straight weekly decline, now roughly 18% below its June peak. Traders immediately reached for the same comparison they used in early 2025, when DeepSeek’s low-cost model briefly convinced everyone the AI capex boom was overbuilt. That comparison is doing a lot of work, and it isn’t entirely fair, but the anxiety underneath it is real.

Here’s the math that’s actually spooking people. Hyperscalers are on pace to spend roughly $700 billion on AI infrastructure this year. That number only makes sense if the resulting AI capabilities are scarce enough to command premium pricing. Kimi K3 is a direct challenge to that scarcity. If a capable open-weight model becomes essentially free to run, the pricing power that’s supposed to justify hundreds of billions in data center and chip spending starts to look shakier. Apollo’s chief economist Torsten Slok has flagged this exact scenario, a mismatch between the timing of capex outlays and the revenue needed to justify them, as a genuine risk to the broader economy, not just to tech multiples.

The counterargument matters too, and it’s worth taking seriously rather than dismissing as AI-bull cope. When DeepSeek did this in January 2025, the market recovered within weeks and capex kept climbing through the rest of the year. A model existing on a leaderboard is not the same thing as enterprises ripping out their existing infrastructure to adopt it. Trust, security certification, and integration with existing cloud contracts still heavily favor the incumbents. And unlike the dot-com buildout this AI infrastructure wave is being financed by companies that are, unlike Pets.com in 1999, extraordinarily profitable in their own right.

The week’s earnings added a second layer to this story that got less attention than it deserved. TSMC posted record quarterly profit and raised its capex guidance through 2027, powered by AI chip demand from Nvidia, Apple, AMD, and Broadcom. The stock fell anyway, because the bar had already been priced to perfection. Meanwhile, a Thursday report suggested Alphabet’s next flagship model, Gemini 3.5 Pro, is running months behind schedule. Put together: the company spending the most is being punished for beating expectations, and the company whose product roadmap is slipping is the one whose upcoming capex guidance investors will be watching most closely next week.

For portfolios, the actionable read isn’t “sell the AI trade.” It’s that the market has moved from rewarding capex announcements unconditionally to demanding proof of monetization on a name-by-name basis. Nvidia’s near-term demand picture from hyperscaler orders remains the more reliable signal than any single foreign model release. But the days of every AI-adjacent stock rallying on capex headlines alone are over. Expect wider dispersion within the sector, not a uniform re-rating, and expect Alphabet’s July 29 earnings, landing the same day as the Fed decision, to be the next real test of whether this was a one-day scare or the start of a repricing.

Subscribe now

Looking Ahead

Next week is lighter on macro data but heavier on the AI capex debate that just reopened. Intel reports Thursday, and given the semiconductor sector’s rough month, its commentary on server demand versus PC weakness will be parsed closely. The bigger event sits a week further out: Microsoft, Meta, and Alphabet all report in the window around the July 28-29 FOMC meeting, meaning the Fed’s rate decision and Big Tech’s capex guidance will land within hours of each other, again.

The question hanging over all of it: was Friday’s selloff a healthy pressure-test of an overheated trade, or the first crack in the assumption that AI infrastructure spending pays for itself? We’ll get a real answer in about ten days. Until then, expect the semiconductor complex to trade on headlines out of China as much as on anything coming out of Washington.

This week’s featured deep dive:

The AI Spending Bubble: History’s Best Investment or History’s Biggest Misallocation of Capital?

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

The AI Spending Bubble: History’s Best Investment or History’s Biggest Misallocation of Capital?

Macro Insight — Wed, 15 Jul 2026 21:53:33 GMT

Four companies are about to spend more on AI infrastructure this year than the annual GDP of Argentina, Belgium, and Poland combined. Microsoft alone is sitting on an $80 billion backlog of cloud orders it physically cannot fill because there isn’t enough electricity to power the servers.

That single fact should reframe how you think about this entire debate: this isn’t a story about whether AI is real. It’s a story about whether the biggest companies on earth can spend fast enough to keep up with demand, or whether they’re about to learn the oldest lesson in capital markets the hard way.

Intro and summary

Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Meta are guiding to a combined $725 billion in capital expenditure in 2026, up 77 percent from roughly $410 billion last year. Analysts already expect the number to break $1 trillion in 2027. Goldman Sachs now models $5.3 trillion in cumulative hyperscaler capex between 2025 and 2030. These are not modest technology upgrades. This is the fastest, largest peacetime capital deployment in corporate history, and it’s happening inside four companies that together represent close to a fifth of the S&P 500’s market cap.

The bull case is straightforward: cloud backlogs are exploding, AI revenue run rates are climbing into the tens of billions, and the companies building the infrastructure are also the ones with the balance sheets to absorb the risk. The bear case is just as straightforward: the spending is compounding faster than the revenue, free cash flow is starting to buckle, and markets are finally starting to ask the question they avoided for two years. Meta’s stock dropped more than 9 percent in a single session this year after raising capex guidance again. That wasn’t noise. That was the first real crack in the “spend now, ask questions later” consensus.

The Deep Dive

Start with the math, because the math is the story. Amazon is guiding to roughly $200 billion in 2026 capex, Microsoft near $190 billion, Google $175 to 190 billion, and Meta $115 to 145 billion. Compare that to combined hyperscaler spending of about $226 billion in 2024. In two years, annual AI infrastructure spending has more than tripled. Nothing in modern corporate history moves at that pace, not the fiber buildout of the late 1990s, not the shale boom, not even the post-2008 quantitative easing cycle in terms of raw capital velocity.

The bulls have real evidence, not just vibes. Microsoft’s commercial remaining performance obligations, essentially contracted future revenue, sit near $627 billion, nearly double where they were a year ago. Google Cloud’s backlog jumped from $240 billion at the end of 2025 to $460 billion within a single quarter. Nvidia’s data center revenue is running north of $75 billion a quarter, up over 90 percent year over year. When a Jefferies analyst recently dismissed bearish AI takes as unfounded, he was pointing at exactly this: revenue and backlog growth that, on paper, still outpaces the capex.

But here’s where the debate gets interesting, and where I think the consensus is missing something. The real constraint on this entire buildout is no longer capital. It’s electrons. Goldman Sachs projects US data center power demand doubling from 31 gigawatts in 2025 to 66 gigawatts by 2027. Global data center electricity consumption is set to grow 26 to 27 percent this year alone, and the IEA projects it more than doubling to roughly 945 terawatt-hours by 2030. Gartner is blunter still, warning that power shortages could constrain 40 percent of AI data centers by 2027. Microsoft’s $80 billion unfulfilled Azure backlog isn’t a demand problem. It’s a grid problem. You cannot build a gigawatt substation in six months no matter how much cash you’re willing to burn.

This changes the nature of the risk. In a normal capex cycle, the danger is overbuilding into weak demand, the classic 1999 fiber glut where companies laid so much cable that pricing collapsed for a decade. This cycle has the opposite problem baked into it: demand for compute is real and arguably understated, but the physical world, transformers, transmission lines, turbines, cannot scale at software speed. That means the bottleneck isn’t going away with more capital. It’s going away with time, permitting, and, increasingly, with hyperscalers building their own power plants, which is exactly what you’re now seeing with nuclear and gas deals from Microsoft, Amazon, and Google.

So who’s actually misallocating capital here? I’d argue it’s not the infrastructure spend itself. Compute that’s contracted, backlogged, and power-constrained is closer to an oil pipeline than a speculative dot-com server farm. The real misallocation risk sits one layer up, in the application and model layer, where hundreds of startups are burning capital on thin differentiation, and in the equity multiples investors are paying for exposure to the infrastructure names. Nvidia, the hyperscalers, and the power and cooling suppliers are pricing in years of flawless execution. That’s the fragile part of this trade, not the concrete and copper.

For investors, the actionable read is this: don’t confuse skepticism about capex sustainability with skepticism about AI demand. Those are two different questions, and the data currently answers them differently. Demand looks durable. The multiples paid for exposure to that demand do not look conservative. Watch free cash flow at Amazon and Microsoft over the next two quarters, watch power procurement announcements as a leading indicator of real capacity coming online, and be honest with yourself about how much of your AI exposure is priced for perfection versus priced for a plausible range of outcomes.

Conclusion

The AI spending bubble question, as usually framed, is a false binary. This isn’t history’s best investment or history’s biggest misallocation. It’s both, depending on which layer of the stack you’re looking at. The physical infrastructure, chips, data centers, power, is backed by real contracted revenue and a genuine physical constraint that limits how fast it can even be built, which is a very different risk profile from speculative overbuilding.

The misallocation risk lives in valuation, not in concrete. Markets have started pricing hyperscalers as if the next five years of capex will convert cleanly into profit, with no power delays, no chip oversupply, no application-layer shakeout eating into margins. History says complex, multi-year infrastructure buildouts rarely execute that cleanly. Meta’s post-earnings selloff was the market’s first real acknowledgment of that risk.

Watch three things over the next two quarters: free cash flow trends at Amazon and Microsoft, the pace of actual megawatts coming online versus what’s been announced, and whether Nvidia’s growth rate decelerates as the hyperscalers’ own custom silicon programs mature. The infrastructure story looks sound. The price you’re paying for it is the actual bet.

Further Reading

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

The Weekly Macro Recap: Oil Just Erased a Month of “Peace.” Your Portfolio Hasn’t Priced It In.

Macro Insight — Sun, 12 Jul 2026 21:12:50 GMT

Your portfolio had a great week. The Dow closed above 53,000 for the first time, the S&P notched a weekly gain, and SK Hynix just pulled off the largest foreign IPO in Nasdaq history. None of that tells you what actually happened in the Gulf. Iran struck a tanker, an unidentified projectile hit a second vessel near the Strait of Hormuz, and the US yanked its own authorization for Iranian oil sales, sending Brent from the low $70s back above $76 in a matter of hours. Wall Street’s biggest banks spent June telling you oil was headed to $60 on a ceasefire that just showed you, twice in four months, how easily it breaks. This week is about the gap between the price the market is charging for peace and the peace that’s actually on the ground, and why that gap is about to collide with a Fed that has already told you it cares more about inflation than about giving you the benefit of the doubt.

This Week’s Big Picture

Wall Street spent the week celebrating a bull market that keeps setting records while quietly ignoring the fact that the ceasefire underpinning cheap energy is falling apart. The S&P 500 closed the week at 7,575, and the Dow topped 53,000 for the first time. Meanwhile Brent crude popped from the low $70s back above $76 after the US resumed strikes on Iran and revoked Tehran’s sanctions waiver. Markets shrugged. That disconnect is the real story of the week.

Layer on top of that a hawkish Fed under Kevin Warsh, whose June minutes (released Wednesday) showed a committee split but “moving in a hawkish direction,” with nine of nineteen officials now penciling in a hike before year end. Add a NATO summit in Ankara that delivered new defense contracts and a fresh Ukraine aid package, and a chip sector still trying to decide whether SK Hynix’s blockbuster Nasdaq debut confirms the AI trade or marks the top. Investors are managing three separate narratives (energy, rates, and AI capex) as if they’re unrelated. They aren’t.

The Deep Dive: The Oil Market Is Trading a Peace That No Longer Exists

Here’s the trade everyone made in June: Iran and the US signed a memorandum of understanding, tankers started moving through the Strait of Hormuz again, and Wall Street’s biggest banks lined up to call the bottom in oil. Citigroup put a year-end target of $60 on Brent. Morgan Stanley warned of an outright glut as flows normalized toward the pre-war level of 20 million barrels a day. Goldman leaned bearish too. The entire thesis rested on one assumption: that the ceasefire would hold long enough for physical supply to catch up with the optimism already baked into prices.

It didn’t hold. This week alone, Iran struck a Qatari LNG tanker transiting Hormuz, a second vessel was hit by an unidentified projectile, and the US responded by revoking its own authorization for Iranian oil sales, effective July 17. Brent spiked from the low $70s to over $76 intraday, and by Friday, President Trump was telling reporters the US considers the ceasefire “over,” before walking that back within hours to say talks would continue. Oil eased on the walk-back, but the pattern is now unmistakable: this is not a resolved conflict finding its footing. It’s a live conflict taking scheduled breaks.

That distinction matters enormously for how you should be positioned. A market pricing in genuine de-escalation should be selling volatility and rotating into the reflation trade that Citi and Morgan Stanley were recommending in early July. A market that actually understands what’s happening in the Gulf should be pricing in a persistent risk premium, because the underlying dynamics haven’t changed. Iran redefined the Strait of Hormuz in May into what it now calls a “vast operational area,” meaning any future flare-up threatens a broader swath of shipping than the narrow chokepoint traders are used to modeling. The February war shut down roughly 25% of global seaborne oil trade and 20% of LNG traffic essentially overnight. That capability to disrupt hasn’t gone away just because tankers started moving again in June.

The analysts calling for $60 Brent aren’t wrong about the fundamentals. Chinese demand is genuinely soft. Global supply, when the strait is fully open, does outstrip consumption. But they are making a bet on political stability in a region that has now demonstrated, twice in four months, that ceasefires can break down over a single tanker attack. Saul Kavonic at MST Financial captured the more realistic framing when he noted that Iran fully intends to cement control over the strait, which could keep passage below half of pre-war levels for months, punctuated by exactly the kind of flare-ups we saw this week.

For investors, the actionable read here isn’t “buy oil” or “sell oil.” It’s that energy volatility is now a structural feature of your portfolio’s risk profile for the second half of 2026, not a transitory headline that resolves itself. Airlines, industrials with heavy fuel exposure, and consumer discretionary names sensitive to gas prices should be modeled with a wider band of outcomes than the market currently seems to be pricing. Energy producers and refiners, meanwhile, are sitting on optionality that a smoothly declining price environment doesn’t reward, but a choppy, spike-prone one does. The mistake this week would be reading Friday’s walk-back as the all-clear. It’s the third or fourth time that specific pattern (escalation, spike, verbal de-escalation, partial retreat) has played out since February. Trading it as a one-off is how portfolios get caught leaning the wrong way when the next tanker gets hit.

Looking Ahead

Next week is the real test of everything the market has been assuming. June CPI drops Tuesday, with economists looking for headline inflation to cool to roughly 3.8% year over year from 4.2% in May, largely on falling gasoline prices, a forecast that Friday’s oil spike may already be undermining before the data even prints. Warsh delivers his first congressional testimony the same day, his first real opportunity to clarify where that “family fight” inside the Fed is trending. And bank earnings kick off Tuesday and Wednesday with JPMorgan, Goldman, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and Morgan Stanley, offering the first real read on whether the twenty-percent-plus earnings growth Wall Street has priced in in for Q2 is actually showing up in the numbers, or just in the multiple.

The question worth sitting with heading into the week: if oil is spiking again and CPI comes in hotter than expected because of it, does Warsh’s Fed have any room left to look past a supply shock the way Powell’s did? That’s the collision that matters, not the record closes.

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

The Weekly Macro Recap: Meta Just Told You the AI Boom Has a Ceiling

Macro Insight — Sun, 05 Jul 2026 21:38:03 GMT

Your portfolio got a live demonstration this week of what happens when the company burning the most cash on AI infrastructure admits it built too much. Meta’s disclosure that it wants to rent out spare AI computing power triggered a chain reaction that wiped out roughly $290 billion in South Korean chip value in a single session and dragged Micron down 13% in the U.S. This wasn’t a rates story or a geopolitics story. It was the first real crack in the assumption that AI demand can absorb infinite supply, and if you own semiconductors, you need to understand exactly why that crack opened.

This Week’s Big Picture

Markets spent the holiday-shortened week rotating away from a year-long obsession with the Iran war and back toward the two questions that actually determine your returns: is the AI capex boom sustainable, and where does new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh take rates. Neither question got a clean answer. Meta’s plan to sell excess AI compute, echoing a similar move by SpaceX earlier this year, forced investors to confront the possibility that hyperscalers have overbuilt data center capacity, and the resulting selloff spread from Seoul to the Nasdaq. Meanwhile, June payrolls came in soft at 57,000 versus 113,000 expected, even as unemployment ticked down to 4.2%, muddying the case for the nine-versus-nine committee split Warsh inherited on rate direction. Oil kept sliding as Strait of Hormuz traffic normalized faster than expected, which is disinflationary but also a signal that demand, not just supply, may be softer than the bulls want. Tesla delivered a blowout quarter and got punished anyway. Every one of these stories points to the same underlying tension: markets priced perfection into growth assets, and this week reality started asking for its due diligence.

The Deep Dive: What Meta’s Compute Pivot Actually Tells You

Start with the mechanics, because they matter more than the headline. Bloomberg reported Wednesday that Meta is building a cloud infrastructure business to sell access to its AI models and raw computing capacity to outside customers, competing directly with Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud. The plan runs through an internal organization called Meta Compute that oversees the buildout and operation of the company’s AI infrastructure. Meta shares popped roughly 9% to 10% on the news, since investors read it as the first sign the company might recoup some of the hundreds of billions it has poured into GPUs and data centers.

Here’s the part that should worry you if you’re long the AI infrastructure trade. Meta’s decision to sell off excess compute comes just weeks after SpaceX, through xAI, announced similar plans. When two of the most aggressive AI spenders in the world both pivot to monetizing “excess” capacity within the same quarter, that is not a coincidence. It is a signal that the internal demand these companies projected when they signed those massive capex budgets is not showing up fast enough to justify the buildout on schedule. Zuckerberg himself hinted at this in May, telling shareholders that outside companies had been approaching Meta to buy compute at a premium, but that no deals had been struck because internal demand had so far absorbed everything available. The fact that Meta is now formalizing an external sales channel means that internal absorption assumption just broke.

The market reaction confirmed the read. Neocloud providers CoreWeave and Nebius, which rent out AI compute as their entire business model, fell double digits on the news because Meta entering their market as both a competitor and a potential customer that no longer needs them is a genuine threat to their growth story. But the bigger shockwave came from Asia. Reports that SK Hynix, the world’s second-largest memory chipmaker, may slow expansion of its high-bandwidth memory production and pivot toward cheaper commodity DRAM sent South Korea’s Kospi index down as much as 10% intraday, triggering a circuit breaker. Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, which together make up roughly half the Kospi’s total weight, lost close to $290 billion in combined value in a single day. The selloff cascaded into Hong Kong and Chinese chip stocks, then into the Nasdaq, where the AI-and-chip complex had its worst two-day stretch in months.

Why does HBM matter so much? It is the memory technology that sits inside Nvidia’s most advanced AI processors, and any slowdown in its production expansion raises real questions about whether the supply chain underpinning the entire AI buildout can keep growing at the pace priced into semiconductor valuations. This is not a demand story about whether people want AI. It is a supply-chain confidence story about whether the companies building the picks and shovels believe the gold rush continues at its current intensity.

My read: this is a repricing, not the start of a bust. The AI capex story has genuine revenue behind parts of it now, unlike the dot-com buildout that had none. But valuations across the chip complex assumed uninterrupted, accelerating demand growth with no air pockets. This week supplied the air pocket. If you’re holding semiconductor exposure, the question to answer before next earnings season isn’t whether AI is real. It’s whether the specific companies you own can show pricing power and utilization holding up as the “excess capacity” conversation spreads from Meta to every other hyperscaler on the call.

Looking Ahead

Wall Street returns from the holiday to a light calendar, but Wednesday’s FOMC minutes from Warsh’s first meeting are the week’s real event. They will be scrutinized for the reasoning behind that nine-versus-nine split on rates and for any signal that the softer June jobs data is shifting the committee’s thinking. Keep watching the chip complex too. If hyperscaler capex commentary at upcoming earnings echoes Meta’s “excess capacity” framing, this week’s selloff was the start of a broader valuation reset, not a one-off. And keep an eye on the Strait of Hormuz. Oil traders are pricing in a durable peace that still has no signed final agreement behind it.

This week’s featured deep dive:

H1 2026 Review: The War Ended Faster Than the Fed’s Response

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

H1 2026 Review: The War Ended Faster Than the Fed’s Response To It

Macro Insight — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 22:45:45 GMT

In May, the S&P 500 hit its 23rd record high of the year. In the same month, US consumer sentiment hit the lowest level ever recorded. Both things were true at once, and that gap tells you more about H1 2026 than any single price chart.

The first half of the year was not a normal grind higher wearing a normal year’s costume. A war spiked oil, oil spiked inflation, inflation forced a new Fed chairman who was supposed to be dovish into the most hawkish policy pivot in years, and by July the war that started it all was already fading faster than the policy response to it. Most portfolios are still priced for the shock, not for what came after.

The War Nobody Priced Correctly

On February 28, the US and Israel launched joint strikes on Iran. Within days Iran moved to close the Strait of Hormuz, the corridor that normally carries around a fifth of the world’s seaborne oil. Tanker traffic collapsed to almost nothing. Twenty thousand mariners and two thousand ships sat stranded in the Persian Gulf. The IEA called it the largest supply disruption in the history of the oil market, larger on an inflation adjusted basis than anything since 1988.

Brent crude, sitting around $61 to $72 a barrel before the strikes, rocketed toward $118 to $120 by late March and April. Dubai crude briefly touched $166. The Brent-WTI spread blew out to $25 a barrel, the widest gap in over five years. Twenty-eight IEA member states released 400 million barrels from emergency reserves in a single coordinated move. California gas topped $6 a gallon in seven counties. This was not a scare, it was a functioning global chokepoint going dark.

Then it kept almost ending and almost not ending. A ceasefire on April 8 gave Iran an opening to reopen the strait on April 17, and Iran re-closed it within hours. Fresh US strikes hit Iran in late May. Finally, on June 17, Trump and Iranian President Pezeshkian signed a memorandum of understanding ending nearly four months of war, with Iran agreeing to 60 days of toll-free passage while insisting it still administers the waterway. Strikes resumed anyway days later. As of this week, technical talks are still running in Doha, and the ceasefire has already been tested more than once.

Here’s the part that should reshape how you think about H2: oil has already crashed. Iran has shipped more than 40 million barrels since the naval blockade lifted, selling at a 20% premium. Russian exports hit records at the same time. Brent just closed out its worst quarter since 2020, down roughly 23 to 30% in a matter of weeks, trading near $72 as of July 1, with WTI near $68. The market that spent March pricing a 1970s-style oil shock spent June pricing an oversupply.

Gold moved on its own schedule. Its all time high, $5,589 an ounce, came on January 28, a full month before the war even started. What followed the war wasn’t a continuation of that rally but a slow bleed, down to roughly $4,000 to $4,032 by early July, its lowest level in nearly eight months, even as gold stayed up about 20% year over year. Gold started trading like a risk asset with a negative correlation to oil, the opposite of its usual safe haven role. That inversion is one of the stranger developments of H1 and worth remembering the next time someone tells you gold is a simple hedge.

The Fed’s Accidental Hawk

Jerome Powell’s term ended this year after Trump spent years attacking him for cutting too slowly. His replacement, Kevin Warsh, was viewed as the dovish alternative, someone who had supported rate cuts while under consideration for the job. Warsh was sworn in May 22. His first FOMC meeting, on June 17, the same day the Hormuz MOU was signed, delivered the opposite of what that setup implied.

Nine of eighteen officials penciled in a rate hike for 2026, a full reversal from March, when the committee’s consensus was one cut. The median dot moved from 3.4% to 3.8% for year end. The Fed dropped language pointing toward future cuts entirely. Markets, caught leaning the wrong way, sold off hard. The Dow fell 507 points. Two year yields jumped 16 basis points to 4.21%, a one year high. The dollar had its best day in nearly a year. Gold fell more than 2%. Odds of a hike on CME FedWatch jumped from 27% to 49% for September and to over 60% for October within hours of Warsh’s press conference.

The driver is straightforward. CPI hit 4.2% in May, a three year high, almost entirely the lagged effect of the oil spike working through the economy. PCE inflation ran 3.8% in April. Warsh, speaking at the ECB forum in Sintra on July 1, made clear the 2% target isn’t up for debate and won’t be revisited until the Fed has actually hit it. He is also pushing to scrap forward guidance and shrink the balance sheet, structural changes that add a layer of policy uncertainty markets haven’t had to price in nearly two decades.

The irony is hard to overstate. A chairman picked to cut rates turned hawkish because a war he didn’t start pushed inflation to a three year high right as he took the chair, and that inflation print is now working its way through the system even as the oil shock that caused it is already unwinding at the wellhead.

The Disconnect At Home

The S&P 500 crossed 7,000 for the first time on April 15, in the middle of an active war, and went on to set 23 record highs in 2026, most recently clearing 7,600 before pulling back toward 7,500 after the June 17 Fed shock. The rally is narrow. Nvidia, Alphabet, and Apple, a combined $14 trillion in market cap, are up 14 to 15%. Micron is up 262% and just crossed $1 trillion, riding the same AI infrastructure demand. Strip out the handful of names carrying the index and the picture looks a lot less triumphant.

Meanwhile the consumer looks exhausted. Sentiment hit its lowest level on record in May, even as the index kept printing highs. Higher gas prices, elevated core inflation, and a labor market that stayed strong enough to give Warsh cover to stay hawkish are squeezing households in a way the index doesn’t reflect. That gap between what stocks are pricing and what people are actually feeling is one of the more important, least discussed stories of the first half.

What Actually Matters for H2

Three catalysts matter more than the dozen you’ll see listed everywhere else. First, the 60 day Hormuz MOU expires around mid-August, and Iran has already signaled it intends to keep administrative control and eventually charge transit fees, meaning the current calm is a truce, not a resolution. Second, the Fed’s next real test lands in September or October, when markets will find out if Warsh’s hawkish debut was posture or genuine policy, especially as summer CPI prints likely show relief from fading energy costs even while the Fed’s own dot plot still points toward tightening. Third, watch whether the AI capex cycle propping up a third of the index’s market cap keeps getting treated as a growth story rather than a leverage story, because that distinction is what separates this rally from a bubble.

None of these are tail risks. They are the base case scenarios most portfolios are still mispricing. The market that gets H2 right will be the one that stops treating the ceasefire as settled and stops treating Warsh as a dove who simply hasn’t cut yet.

The thesis for H2, in one line: policy is still fighting last quarter’s war, and the gap between a Fed still bracing for an energy shock and an oil market already flooding with supply is where H2 either gets very interesting or very expensive.

Further Reading

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

The Weekly Macro Recap: Wall Street Finally Asked When AI Pays Back

Macro Insight — Sun, 28 Jun 2026 20:12:57 GMT

Big Tech is burning cash at a pace that would make the dot-com era blush, and the market finally noticed. This week didn’t just produce a chip selloff. It produced a verdict on which part of the AI trade actually has a business under it.

This Week’s Big Picture

For most of 2026, markets operated on a single article of faith: hyperscalers spend, chip companies win. That logic got stress-tested this week, and it cracked in a very specific place.

Big Tech is on pace to spend $725 billion on AI infrastructure in 2026, part of an estimated $2.1 trillion deployment through 2028. That is a capex intensity of 34% of revenue, more than double the peak seen during the 1990s internet buildout. For months, markets treated that figure as a guarantee of chip revenues. This week, they started treating it as a question. The question: when does $725 billion become a liability instead of a catalyst?

The answer arrived in two waves. Early in the week, hyperscalers and AI software names took the brunt of the selling, with investors repricing the gap between capital deployed and returns visible on income statements. By Thursday, a rotation emerged: the Dow notched a record 52,500, lifted by non-tech sectors, as softer energy prices and an in-line PCE print gave the broader economy some breathing room. Crude oil prices eased in June amid hopes the Strait of Hormuz could soon fully reopen, though that drop in energy costs wasn’t yet reflected in May’s PCE data. Two forces collided simultaneously: an AI confidence crisis at the top of the market cap ladder, and an inflation relief valve opening at the macro level. Where you were positioned determined whether this was a brutal week or a manageable one.

The Deep Dive: The Capex Credibility Crisis

Here is the number that changed everything this week: Alphabet guided 2026 capital expenditures to a range of $175 billion to $190 billion. First-quarter capital expenditure alone reached $35.7 billion, with roughly 60% directed at servers. Free cash flow in Q1 fell 47% year over year to $10.1 billion, and consensus estimates project full-year free cash flow of roughly $20.5 billion in 2026, down approximately 72% from the $73.3 billion Alphabet generated in 2025.

Read that again. Alphabet is projected to generate 72% less free cash flow in 2026 than it did in 2025, while spending six times what it spent on infrastructure in 2022. The market looked at that equation and sold. Hard.

But here is where the analysis gets interesting, because not everything sold. The week revealed a bifurcation that most portfolios probably aren’t built to exploit.

On one side sit the AI capex aggregators: hyperscalers whose valuations rest on the assumption that hundreds of billions in AI infrastructure spending will eventually generate returns commensurate with the cost. On the other side sit the HBM memory plays, insulated by architecture and by multi-year supply contracts that have already locked in their revenue regardless of what the interest-rate environment does to the value of future earnings. Micron fell 13% Tuesday, then surged on Thursday after strong earnings guidance. That is not a contradiction. It is a market learning to distinguish between companies exposed to AI capex sentiment and companies whose revenue from AI is already contracted and warehoused.

Micron’s entire 2026 HBM output was pre-sold under binding contracts before the year began, meaning its 2026 revenue is not subject to AI capex sentiment. The Tuesday selloff was investors panic-selling without reading the fine print. Thursday’s recovery was the correction of that error.

Goldman Sachs equity research head James Covello was direct about the broader concern: “At some point, you’ve got to make money.” Enterprise surveys in 2025 and 2026 found that 95% of corporate AI projects delivered no measurable return. That statistic is doing real work right now in institutional portfolio construction. You cannot maintain $725 billion in annual capex justified by zero measured enterprise ROI indefinitely. At some point the denominator in that equation has to change, and investors this week decided they were no longer willing to simply wait for it.

The portfolio implication here is not to exit AI. The Nasdaq is still up 10% year-to-date, even after the selloff. Most analysts call this a correction, not a crash, with tech earnings still growing. The implication is to be precise about which side of the capex equation you own. Owning the picks and shovels with contracted revenue, Micron and SK Hynix among them, is a fundamentally different position than owning the companies writing the checks. Both are AI trades. Only one is currently exposed to the question of whether those checks were worth writing.

Vanguard’s global head of capital market research and senior global economist put it plainly: “As we continue to learn what the economics of AI look like in practice, the market’s sensitivity to the ups and downs is likely to be significant.” They added: “Investors should expect a bumpy ride.” That is not bearish. It is honest. And this week was exactly what a bumpy ride looks like when a multi-trillion dollar investment thesis hits its first serious credibility checkpoint.

Looking Ahead

The central tension next week is whether the AI capex credibility debate deepens or stabilizes. Micron’s guidance was strong enough to suggest demand is real; the question is whether the broader market accepts that as vindication of the trade or treats it as an outlier. The other variable is geopolitical: Trump’s accusation that Iran violated the ceasefire by firing at Strait of Hormuz cargo ships reintroduced tail risk that markets had started to price out. If oil reverses, the Fed’s September decision becomes far less predictable. And somewhere in the pipeline, OpenAI and Anthropic are moving toward their own IPO filings. After SpaceX’s bond drama, public market investors will be asking harder questions about what the next mega-listing actually earns today versus what it promises by 2030.

This week’s featured deep dive:

Fiscal dominance: The Rule That Governed Bond Markets for 40 Years Just Broke

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

Fiscal dominance: The Rule That Governed Bond Markets for 40 Years Just Broke

Macro Insight — Wed, 24 Jun 2026 21:38:46 GMT

Bond investors used to have one job: watch the Fed.

They studied inflation prints, parsed central bank minutes, and positioned around rate cycles. That framework made them money for four decades. It is no longer enough. A different force is moving into the driver’s seat, and most investors are still reading from the old script.

How We Got Here

For most of the post-war era, a clear division of labor kept financial markets relatively predictable. Governments spent and borrowed. Central banks independently set interest rates to manage inflation and growth. When prices rose too fast, the Fed hiked. Demand cooled. Inflation fell. Governments adjusted to whatever rates the market imposed.

In that world, bond investors had it simple. Watch the central bank. Forecast inflation. Position accordingly.

The problem is that framework assumed something we no longer have: governments with modest debt levels that could absorb higher rates without fiscal crisis.

That assumption is now broken, and the implications run through every asset class.

The Deep Dive

Fiscal dominance occurs when government debt becomes so large that fiscal policy starts constraining monetary policy rather than the other way around. The sequence is straightforward. Governments run large deficits. Debt levels rise. Interest expenses grow. Higher rates make debt service even more expensive. At that point, central banks face pressure not to keep rates too high for too long, because doing so risks tipping the government’s finances into genuine distress.

The question investors then start asking is not “what does the inflation data say?” It is “is monetary policy being set to fight inflation, or to keep government financing sustainable?” Those are not always the same question, and when they diverge, something has to give.

The math has changed dramatically across developed economies. OECD central governments issued $17 trillion in bonds in 2025, with issuance projected to reach $18 trillion in 2026, happening at the same time that central banks have withdrawn their long-standing support for markets through asset purchase programs. More supply arriving just as the largest historical buyer steps back. That is not a small adjustment. That is a structural shift in who bears the risk of holding government debt.

Since September 2024, yields on long-term government bonds have remained elevated even as central banks reduced their policy interest rates. That decoupling is the fingerprint of fiscal dominance beginning to assert itself. In the old regime, rate cuts pulled long yields down reliably. Now they barely move. The market is telling you it is thinking about something other than monetary policy.

That something is supply. A key factor driving higher term premiums is global concern about the ability of markets to absorb substantial amounts of government debt. Term premiums, the extra compensation investors demand for lending to governments over long periods, have risen across advanced economies simultaneously. This is not a US-specific story. It is a developed-world story.

This matters for inflation in a second-order way that is easy to miss. Large deficits inject demand into the economy. In the near term, high supply levels and potential government shutdowns risk driving higher yields further. But the deeper issue is contradictory policy. One institution presses the accelerator while the other presses the brake. The result is not a clean path to 2% inflation. It is a structurally messier inflation environment where the old playbook of “hike, wait, cut” no longer produces clean outcomes.

The endgame that historically indebted governments tend to reach for is financial repression. Not always by design, and rarely announced. UBS describes financial repression as a regime that channels savings and central bank funds into government bonds, suppressing yields, and believes it is likely to become more common in coming years. The mechanics are simple: keep nominal rates below inflation, allow the real value of debt to erode gradually, and avoid the political pain of either tax increases or spending cuts. Bondholders pay the price. They earn a yield that does not keep up with prices, and the real purchasing power of their capital quietly diminishes.

If inflation is higher than the yield, the real value of the capital is reduced, and the investor incurs a negative real yield. That is not a tail risk under financial repression. That is the intended outcome.

For equity investors, the implications are more nuanced but no less significant. The last decade’s equity market leadership, concentrated in growth stocks and long-duration assets, was built on a specific foundation: falling rates, low inflation volatility, and abundant central bank liquidity. Each of those props supported higher valuation multiples. A fiscal dominance environment implies the opposite: higher deficits, more volatile inflation, rising term premiums, and bond yields that respond to Treasury issuance calendars as much as to central bank guidance. That is an environment that compresses multiples and rewards different sectors than the last decade did. Real assets, commodity producers, and companies with genuine pricing power tend to hold their value better when the monetary anchor loosens. Long-duration growth stocks do not.

The honest caveat is that fiscal dominance rarely arrives all at once. The United States is not in full fiscal dominance, but the preconditions are clearly building. The transition is gradual, and markets can ignore it for longer than fundamentalists expect. Japan has carried a debt-to-GDP ratio near 245% for years without triggering the catastrophe many predicted. The reserve currency status of the dollar buys additional time. But buying time is not the same as solving the problem.

The Bottom Line

The regime that governed bond markets for the past forty years was built on one central premise: central banks set the price of money, and everything else followed. That premise depended on governments with manageable debt loads. Most of them no longer have one.

Nearly $1 of every $5 in US federal revenues now goes toward interest on the debt, and net interest is the second-largest government expenditure, with those payments projected to grow at 7.5% annually through 2036. At some point, that math constrains every other policy choice, including monetary policy.

The investors who will do best in this environment are the ones who start asking a different set of questions. Not just “when does the Fed cut?” but “who buys the next $18 trillion in sovereign issuance?” Not just “what is core inflation?” but “what does the government’s borrowing need look like over the next three years?” The signal has shifted. The bond market is now as much a referendum on fiscal credibility as it is on monetary policy. That is a different game. It rewards different tools. And it has already started.

Further Reading

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

The Weekly Macro Recap: The Fed Just Rewrote the Rules

Macro Insight — Sun, 21 Jun 2026 21:59:06 GMT

The era of Powell-style Fed management is over, and what replaced it is not the dovish pivot markets spent two years begging for. It is the opposite. If you were still positioned for rate cuts by year-end, Wednesday changed the math in ways the dot plot alone cannot fully convey.

This Week’s Big Picture

Three forces converged this week into something worth treating as a unified thesis rather than a collection of unrelated data points. The Federal Reserve, under first-time chair Kevin Warsh, delivered a hold that carried an unmistakably hawkish message buried in updated projections. U.S. headline CPI printed at 4.2% year-over-year in May, the highest in three years, with energy items accounting for over 60% of the monthly increase. And the AI IPO supercycle continued reshaping investor attention as markets processed what $3.6 trillion in pending listings means for capital flows.

The Nasdaq outperformed for the week, advancing 2.43%, while the S&P 500 added 0.93% and the Russell 2000 gained 1.21%. Markets closed Friday for Juneteenth. The index-level gains mask a more complicated picture underneath: a violent repricing of short-end rates on Wednesday following the FOMC decision, a partial recovery Thursday, and persistent uncertainty about whether summer brings a hike, a hold, or something the market has not yet fully priced. The thread connecting all of it is inflation that is no longer easy to dismiss as a transitory energy story, and a new Fed chair who has zero interest in managing that narrative softly.

The Deep Dive: Warsh Draws His Line

The Federal Reserve held its benchmark interest rate steady at 3.50% to 3.75% on June 17, in Kevin Warsh’s first meeting as Fed Chair. The vote was unanimous, 12-0, but the projections underneath told a more hawkish story: the median policymaker now expects rates to end 2026 higher than today, a flip from March when the median still implied a cut. And 17 of 18 officials judged the risks to inflation to be tilted to the upside.

That last number is the one that matters most and is getting the least attention. When 17 of 18 committee members say inflation risks are skewed higher, you are not looking at a divided Fed cautiously weighing two-sided uncertainty. You are looking at a committee that has, almost unanimously, concluded the next surprise is more likely to be hot than cold. That is a profoundly different posture than anything we saw under Powell in the past two years.

Consistent with Warsh’s prior criticism of the Fed’s overly communicative stance, the post-meeting statement totaled just 130 words. It described the U.S. economy as expanding at a solid pace and noted that job gains have kept pace with the workforce. Any mention of an easing bias was gone. For context, the April statement ran 341 words. Warsh did not merely deliver a hawkish message. He deleted the infrastructure the market had been using to read between the lines.

Warsh did not participate in the dot plot, saying he had refrained from offering any projections of his own, consistent with his long-held views. That left the forecast from the other 18 members evenly split: nine policymakers project higher rates, and the other nine suggest rates unchanged or lower by year-end.

This creates a genuinely novel problem for markets. The forward guidance architecture that has anchored rate expectations since 2012 is being actively dismantled. Warsh confirmed a review of the Fed’s communications framework would cover press conferences, dots, and meetings broadly, and some observers believe this could be the last time the dot plot appears in its current form. If that happens, markets lose their primary real-time window into the Fed’s collective thinking. Less information from the Fed means wider confidence intervals on rate path estimates, and a structurally higher term premium across the curve as a result.

Here is the part worth sitting with. Core CPI, excluding volatile food and energy categories, increased just 0.2% on the month and 2.9% year-over-year , well-behaved relative to the 4.2% headline. Some analysts argue that when the Iran-linked energy supply shock dissipates, the Fed can stay on hold for the remainder of the year. That is a coherent bull case. But consider what the committee is actually signaling. The hawkish turn came even as oil prices fell following a U.S.-Iran interim peace agreement, suggesting the inflation concern the Fed flagged is broader than the energy supply shocks its statement cited.

Even with oil coming off, even with core at 2.9%, nine members are penciling in at least one hike this year. The Fed now projects PCE inflation at 3.6% at year-end, up sharply from a 2.7% projection in March, with the most hawkish participant penciling in a fed funds rate near 4.5%. They are looking past the supply shock and seeing something structurally sticky.

The portfolio implication is straightforward, if uncomfortable. The front-end repricing is real: the yield on the two-year U.S. Treasury note hit its highest level in over a year following Wednesday’s meeting. Duration risk deserves a hard look. Long-duration bonds, rate-sensitive equities, and anything priced for a 2024-vintage easing cycle are sitting in a different interest rate world than the one they were designed for.

Looking Ahead

Two data points will dominate the next two weeks. The May PCE price index arrives June 25 and will either validate the Fed’s hawkish tilt or complicate it. If PCE comes in below the committee’s updated 3.6% year-end forecast trajectory, expect a brief front-end rally and another round of debate about whether Warsh’s first meeting was performative credibility-building or a genuine policy signal. Micron reports earnings next week as well, and the result will test whether the AI infrastructure spending thesis has enough internal momentum to withstand a rate environment that just got meaningfully tighter. If Micron guides confidently, it tells you the AI capex cycle is self-sustaining. If it doesn’t, that is a different conversation entirely, and one that touches every AI-adjacent position in your portfolio.

This week’s featured deep dive:

The End of Dollar Dominance: Myth or Reality?

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

The End of Dollar Dominance: Myth or Reality?

Macro Insight — Wed, 17 Jun 2026 19:49:13 GMT

Every geopolitical crisis seems to birth the same prediction: this time the dollar falls. Russia invades Ukraine, BRICS nations meet, China signs a new trade deal in yuan, and the headlines follow like clockwork. “Dollar dominance is ending.” “De-dollarization accelerates.” The analysis sounds compelling. The data often looks damning. And yet the dollar endures.

This is not an accident. It is a structural feature of how the global financial system actually works, one that its critics consistently underestimate. The dollar’s survival is not about American soft power or diplomatic muscle. It is about something far more boring and far more durable: the absence of a credible alternative.

Understanding why the dollar keeps surviving is not just an academic exercise. It tells you something important about where global capital flows when fear rises, where central banks still park their reserves, and why bets against the dollar have a long and painful history.

The Deep Dive

Start with the most cited evidence for dollar decline. U.S. national debt has crossed $36 trillion. Washington’s fiscal trajectory shows no sign of discipline, with deficits running above 6% of GDP outside of a recession. BRICS nations have loudly discussed alternatives to dollar-denominated trade. Central banks, led by China and Russia, have been buying gold at the fastest pace in decades. And the weaponization of dollar-based sanctions after 2022 gave every adversarial nation a concrete reason to seek an exit ramp.

These are real trends. None of them are fabricated. But they keep failing to deliver the killing blow because the dollar’s critics conflate “weakening position” with “collapse,” and those are two very different things.

The dollar’s share of global foreign exchange reserves has declined, falling from roughly 73% in 2001 to around 57% today. That looks dramatic until you ask what replaced it. The answer is: a little bit of everything. The euro picked up some share. The Chinese yuan, for all the headlines it generates, sits at roughly 2.3% of global reserves. After decades of internationalization efforts, sustained government investment, and aggressive trade diplomacy, China’s currency holds barely a fraction of what the dollar commands. The yuan faces a fundamental problem: capital controls. You cannot freely move money in and out of China. Any currency that aspires to global reserve status needs deep, liquid, open capital markets. Beijing has consistently chosen financial control over financial openness, and that choice has a cost.

The euro is the dollar’s most credible rival and has been for 25 years. It has not closed the gap. Europe lacks a unified bond market, a single fiscal authority, and the geopolitical coherence that makes a reserve currency trustworthy under stress. The 2010-2012 sovereign debt crisis demonstrated exactly what happens when those foundations are missing. Investors fled back to dollars.

Then there is the BRICS alternative payment argument. The idea that Russia, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa will construct a rival to SWIFT and price commodities in a new unit of account sounds plausible in a press release. In practice, these nations have competing interests, incompatible financial systems, and deep mutual distrust. India and China share a disputed border and fought a military skirmish as recently as 2020. The idea of them co-anchoring a reserve currency requires setting aside more geopolitical tension than a single summit can paper over.

Gold purchases by central banks are real and worth watching. Emerging market central banks have been diversifying away from Treasuries, and gold has been the primary beneficiary. But gold is not a transactional currency. You cannot settle an oil contract in gold bars in any practical sense. What central bank gold buying signals is hedging, not replacement. Nations are buying insurance against a scenario where dollar weaponization becomes even more aggressive. That is rational. It is not de-dollarization.

Here is the structural reality that tends to get buried under the geopolitical noise. The dollar is dominant not because America decided it should be, but because global trade, commodity pricing, and debt markets evolved around it organically over 80 years. Roughly 88% of all foreign exchange transactions still involve the dollar on one side. Oil, copper, agricultural commodities, and most financial derivatives are priced in dollars. If you are a Korean company buying Brazilian soybeans, you almost certainly settle in dollars. Not because Washington mandated it, but because it is the most efficient common denominator.

Switching that system is not a policy choice. It is a coordination problem of extraordinary complexity, requiring simultaneous agreement across thousands of institutions, contracts, and markets. The network effects of dollar dominance compound with every transaction.

What actually threatens the dollar is not a foreign rival. It is American policy itself. Sustained fiscal deterioration erodes the credibility of Treasuries as the world’s safest asset. Overuse of financial sanctions narrows the universe of actors willing to hold dollar reserves. Political dysfunction that threatens debt ceiling resolutions chips away at the perception of reliability. These are self-inflicted risks. The dollar’s enemies are most dangerous when they are domestic.

Conclusion

The dollar is not invincible. Its dominance has eroded at the margins and will likely continue to do so. But erosion is not collapse, and the gap between those two outcomes is enormous for investors trying to position around this narrative.

The honest read is this: the dollar will remain the world’s primary reserve and transaction currency for longer than its critics predict, but with a slowly declining share and rising volatility risk around U.S. fiscal decisions. That creates a specific set of implications. Gold as a reserve diversifier remains rational. Currency exposure matters more than it did a decade ago. And any scenario that puts severe pressure on Treasuries, whether through a debt crisis, a political breakdown, or sustained inflation, deserves serious attention in how you think about portfolio construction.

Watch the fiscal trajectory, not the BRICS summits. Watch Fed credibility, not yuan headlines. The dollar will not be killed by a press conference in Johannesburg. If it faces a genuine reckoning, it will come from Washington.

That is where the real story is.

Further Reading

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

The Weekly Macro Recap: The Week the Market Had to Choose

Macro Insight — Sun, 14 Jun 2026 20:30:17 GMT

The week that just ended gave markets three events that, taken together, define the impossible position your portfolio is navigating right now. Inflation re-accelerated above 4%. The most hyped IPO in Wall Street history went off without a hitch. And a war-driven oil shock may be hours away from an unwinding. Next Wednesday, Kevin Warsh chairs his first Fed meeting and has to reconcile all three at once.

This Week’s Big Picture

Markets had a rough week, and the number that explains it is 4.2%. Annual US inflation came in at 4.2% for the 12 months ending May, up from 3.8% previously, according to Labor Department data released Wednesday. The CPI-U increased 0.5% on a seasonally adjusted monthly basis in May, after rising 0.6% in April, with the energy index accounting for over 60% of the monthly all-items increase. That is not noise. That is a trend.

The three major averages finished solidly lower on Wednesday following the CPI release. The S&P 500 declined 1.62% to close at 7,266.99, while the Nasdaq dropped 1.98% and the Dow lost 953 points. Chip stocks absorbed the worst of it, with the sector already under pressure heading into the week after a violent rotation out of AI names the prior Friday. The headline annual inflation rate climbed above 4% for the first time in three years. That milestone matters psychologically. It tells the market that the Fed’s post-war inflation strategy, which has been essentially “wait and see,” is no longer defensible.

Friday brought partial relief. Brent crude settled at $87.33, down 3.4%, while WTI finished at $84.88, its lowest level since April 17, as traders grew more confident about an imminent US-Iran peace agreement. The SpaceX IPO closed up 19%. By Friday’s close, the week’s narrative had shifted from inflation panic to cautious optimism. But the CPI print does not disappear because oil pulled back on a deal that has not actually been signed.

The Deep Dive: Kevin Warsh Has Nowhere to Hide

Wednesday’s FOMC meeting is not really a rate decision. Everyone knows the outcome: CME’s FedWatch tool shows a 98.2% probability the Fed holds rates at 3.50%-3.75% on June 17. What Wednesday actually is, is Kevin Warsh’s first public test as Federal Reserve Chair, and the stakes for that test are considerably higher than most commentators are acknowledging.

Warsh, a former Fed Governor known for his hawkish views on inflation and his criticism of quantitative easing, chairs his first FOMC meeting this month. It is a Summary of Economic Projections meeting, meaning traders will receive the updated dot plot and economic forecasts alongside the rate decision. Warsh was confirmed 54-45 and sworn in on May 22, replacing Jerome Powell. Goldman Sachs has pushed expected rate cuts to 2027, signaling a prolonged hold period ahead.

The surface question is what happens to the dot plot. The quarterly dot plot’s lone remaining 2026 rate cut is expected to be erased, and Warsh may move to scrap the dot plot framework altogether, fulfilling his pledge of a “regime change in the conduct of policy.” Futures markets now price a 56% chance of a rate hike by year-end.

Think about that trajectory. A year ago the market was pricing Fed cuts. Today it is pricing a hike. That is a complete reversal of the expected policy path, and it happened because the central bank cannot get out ahead of a war it has no tools to end.

This is the trap Warsh inherits. Rate hikes do not reopen the Strait of Hormuz. They do not repair Iranian refinery infrastructure or restore Gulf tanker flows. What they can do is crush demand enough to offset some energy pass-through, at the cost of a labor market that has been the one genuinely bright spot in an otherwise complicated macro picture. That is a genuinely bad set of options, and Warsh deserves some credit for inheriting rather than creating it. The market, however, will not grade on that curve.

Reports indicate Warsh plans to kill the dot plot at the June meeting. With headline PCE at 4% and energy up 18%, a transparent dot plot would signal higher rates, which is a message Trump wants silenced. That framing may be uncharitable to Warsh personally, but it describes the political reality he cannot escape. He was nominated by a president who has spent years arguing for lower interest rates regardless of conditions. He was confirmed on a party-line vote. And now he chairs a meeting where any honest economic projection calls for tighter policy.

Eliminating the dot plot reads in two ways simultaneously. The charitable interpretation: Warsh genuinely believes the dot plot creates false precision and incentivizes bad communication, a defensible view that economists across the spectrum share. The uncharitable interpretation: the dot plot, if published honestly today, would show a median dot pointing toward a hike, and nobody in the White House wants to see that on the newswire.

What to watch for: the tone of the statement’s bias language, whether the press conference sounds like someone willing to hike if the data demands it, and whether any dissents emerge on the hold decision itself. Warsh inherits an FOMC that produced four dissents at its most recent meeting. A committee that divided does not become unified simply because the chair changes. If Warsh’s first meeting produces additional dissents or a noticeably dovish statement against a 4.2% inflation backdrop, the bond market’s reaction will be swift and uncomfortable.

Looking Ahead

The single most important question heading into next week is whether the US-Iran peace deal actually closes. Pakistan’s Prime Minister said a final agreed text of the deal has been reached, while Iran’s Foreign Minister said an understanding “has never been closer.” Trump publicly rejected Iran’s version of the terms on Friday, clouding the picture. A signed deal this weekend would reverse the CPI trajectory, put the ECB in an awkward position having just hiked, and give Warsh the cover to strike a more neutral tone on Wednesday. No deal means oil re-tests $90-plus and the stagflation narrative reasserts itself heading into the summer. Watch the overnight crude print Sunday and Monday. It will tell you more about the week ahead than any economist’s forecast.

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

Six Catalysts That Could Crack The Global Economy

Macro Insight — Wed, 10 Jun 2026 16:08:48 GMT

The economy looks fine, but it isn’t. US unemployment is low. Equity markets have recovered from their April lows. Corporate earnings, in aggregate, remain positive. If you only read the headlines, you’d think the global economy is navigating a tricky period with reasonable composure.

That reading is dangerously incomplete.

What’s actually happening underneath is a slow accumulation of structural stress across six distinct fault lines, each serious on its own, but interconnected in ways that make the overall picture more fragile than any single indicator suggests. This isn’t about predicting a crash. It’s about understanding that when multiple systems are under strain simultaneously, the tolerance for a shock, any shock, drops significantly.

Here is where the real risks are building.

The Deep Dive

1. US Economic Deterioration

The US consumer, the engine of the global economy, is showing real cracks. Credit card delinquencies are rising, savings accumulated during the pandemic stimulus era are largely depleted, and lower-income cohorts are under visible financial stress. Retail sales are softening. The leading indicators, new orders, consumer confidence, trucking volumes, are pointing in the wrong direction.

The jobs market has been the last line of defense for the bullish narrative. But look closer: a disproportionate share of recent job gains have been part-time, government-sector, or in healthcare and social assistance. Private sector, full-time employment growth has been underwhelming. The unemployment rate can stay low while the quality of labor demand quietly deteriorates. That is what appears to be happening.

2. Fiscal Deterioration and the Debt Wall

The US fiscal position is not a future problem. It is a present one. The federal deficit is running above 6% of GDP in what is, by any historical measure, a non-recessionary environment. Interest payments on the national debt now exceed defense spending. The Congressional Budget Office’s long-term projections are, politely, uncomfortable.

More immediately, the US faces a massive debt refinancing cycle over the next two to three years. A large share of Treasury debt issued at near-zero rates must now be rolled over at 4% or above. That is a structural increase in the interest burden with no political solution in sight. Markets have started demanding compensation for this risk. The term premium on long-dated Treasuries is rising. That matters for everything from mortgage rates to corporate borrowing costs.

3. Commercial Real Estate

This story has been slow-moving, which is part of why it keeps getting underestimated. Office vacancy rates in major US cities are at or near historic highs. Remote work did not reverse. It settled. The consequence is a commercial real estate sector with falling valuations, rising refinancing pressures, and an outsized exposure concentrated in regional and community banks.

Those banks are not systemically large, but they are important. They provide the credit that small businesses and local economies depend on. A prolonged, grinding correction in commercial real estate is not a 2008-style sudden implosion. It is a slow bleed that quietly tightens credit availability across a wide section of the real economy.

4. Energy and Geopolitical Instability

The Strait of Hormuz moves roughly 20% of global oil supply. Strait of Hormuz risk is not theoretical right now. The broader Middle East remains structurally unstable in ways that have direct energy market implications. Meanwhile, the Russia-Ukraine conflict has permanently redrew European energy supply chains. The transition to renewables is real but slow, and baseload energy security remains a vulnerability for most developed economies.

An energy price spike from a geopolitical shock would land on an economy already dealing with sticky services inflation. Central banks would face an impossible choice: respond to the second-round inflation effects and risk recession, or look through it and risk credibility.

5. Japan and the Carry Trade

This is the risk that gets the least mainstream attention and arguably deserves the most. For years, Japan’s near-zero interest rates funded a global carry trade of enormous scale. Investors borrowed cheap yen and deployed it into higher-yielding assets everywhere, US equities, emerging market bonds, tech stocks.

The Bank of Japan is, slowly but unmistakably, normalizing. As Japanese rates rise and the yen strengthens, those carry trades unwind. We got a preview in August 2024 when a modest yen move triggered a sharp, brief global equity selloff. That was a warning, not the event itself. The full unwind of the yen carry trade, if disorderly, would transmit stress into asset markets with a speed and breadth that most investors are not positioned for.

6. China

China’s post-pandemic recovery failed to materialize as expected. The property sector, which represented an outsized share of household wealth and economic activity, is in a prolonged downturn. Deflation risk is real. Youth unemployment hit levels serious enough that the government stopped publishing the data for a period.

The deeper issue is structural. The investment and export-led growth model that drove China’s rise is exhausted, and the transition to domestic consumption has been slower and harder than policymakers planned. A weakening China doesn’t just affect emerging markets. It suppresses global commodity demand, pressures export economies, and creates political incentives for trade measures that further fragment the global system.

Conclusion

None of these six risks requires a catastrophic trigger to matter. Each one is already quietly doing damage. The more important point is what happens when they interact.

A geopolitical energy shock hits an already-stressed US consumer while regional banks are absorbing commercial real estate losses and the Treasury is competing for capital at elevated rates. A disorderly yen unwind compresses global liquidity at the same moment China’s slowdown is pulling commodity prices down. These are not independent variables. They are connected.

The economy looks resilient because the lagging indicators, employment, GDP, corporate profits, are still holding. But leading indicators, credit stress, fiscal trajectory, asset quality in property, external shocks in formation, are telling a different story.

The risk today is not that one thing breaks. It’s that several things strain simultaneously in an environment where policymakers have less room to respond than at any point since the 2008 financial crisis. Rates are still elevated. Fiscal space is limited. Central bank credibility is fragile.

Resilience is not the same as health. The global economy is resilient. Watch whether it stays that way.

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

The Weekly Macro Recap: The AI Trade Just Broke

Macro Insight — Sun, 07 Jun 2026 14:14:02 GMT

All week, equities and bonds were telling contradictory stories. Then Friday arrived with a blowout jobs number and a semiconductor meltdown, and the bond market won the argument in a single session. The S&P 500 fell 2.6%, the Dow dropped 695 points, and the Nasdaq collapsed 4.2%, its worst day since April 2025. The AI trade that powered markets higher for months just got its first serious stress test.

This Week’s Big Picture

For most of the week, the bull case was holding. Earnings were strong, the SpaceX IPO was generating enormous buzz, and risk appetite was intact. Then two things happened in rapid succession that exposed just how fragile the setup had become.

Broadcom’s fiscal Q2 earnings, released after market close on June 3, beat on revenue and EPS, but its Q3 AI chip guidance of $16 billion came in below the $17.2 billion analyst estimate, and management notably did not raise its full-year 2026 AI semiconductor forecast. That triggered a severe “sell the news” reaction Thursday. Broadcom closed Thursday down 12.59%. Then Friday delivered the knockout punch.

Nonfarm payrolls surged 172,000 in May, more than double the 80,000 consensus estimate. A strong jobs number in a normal cycle would lift stocks. Instead, it spiked Treasury yields and cemented expectations that the Fed is going nowhere near a rate cut. The combination of a cracking AI narrative and a hawkish macro signal sent the Nasdaq into freefall. The week ended with the S&P 500’s first losing week in ten.

The Deep Dive: Broadcom Just Broke the AI Consensus

The Broadcom selloff is more consequential than a single earnings miss. It is the first meaningful crack in the defining investment thesis of 2025 and 2026: that AI infrastructure spending is essentially uncapped and will accelerate indefinitely.

Broadcom’s actual numbers were extraordinary by any historical standard. Q2 AI semiconductor revenue grew 143% year-over-year to $10.8 billion, and Q3 revenue guidance of $29.4 billion implies 84% year-over-year growth. In any other era, that would be a standing ovation. Instead, the market’s reaction was a 14% single-day drop because Broadcom’s Q3 AI chip guidance fell short of analyst expectations and the company did not raise its full-year forecast.

That is the danger of pricing perfection into a stock. Broadcom was not failing. It was merely growing at a rate that no longer exceeded the market’s already extraordinary expectations. And once that expectation gap opened, the cascade was rapid. Marvell Technology and Micron plunged around 16% and 13% respectively on Friday, while Intel and AMD lost around 11%.

The deeper question this raises is one that AI bulls have been able to dismiss for two years: at what point does the AI capex cycle peak? The hyperscalers, Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta, have been spending at historic rates building out infrastructure. That spending flows directly into Broadcom, Nvidia, and the broader chip supply chain. But infrastructure buildouts are not linear forever. They plateau. And when they do, the companies priced for perpetual acceleration get hit hardest.

This is not a call that the AI trade is over. Broadcom’s own numbers prove the demand is real. But the market’s violent reaction to guidance that was merely good rather than transcendent tells you how much of the future is already priced in. Any softening in hyperscaler capex commentary, any sign that data center capacity is catching up to demand, and this sector reprices sharply.

For investors, the Broadcom episode is a useful forcing function. The distinction that now matters is not “AI exposed” versus “AI unexposed.” It is “AI companies growing earnings fast enough to justify current multiples” versus “AI companies priced for perfection who have stopped surprising to the upside.” The former is still a compelling investment. The latter just showed what happens on a bad week.

Looking Ahead

Three events will define the next two weeks. First, the SpaceX IPO on June 12 will tell you more about the real state of tech risk appetite than any analyst survey could. Second, Warsh’s first FOMC press conference on June 17 sets the tone for the entire second half. Does he signal a hold-and-watch posture, or does he plant the seeds for a hike? Third, watch the Iran situation. A genuine ceasefire agreement is the single most bullish macro catalyst available right now, and it remains entirely possible.

The deeper question heading into summer: is Friday’s selloff a circuit breaker that resets expectations to a healthier level, or the first crack in a structure that has been holding on thin ice? The bond market has been warning about this moment for months. It finally got the equity market’s attention.

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

The Commodity Supercycle Is Here

Macro Insight — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 16:24:45 GMT

While markets obsess over AI valuations and Fed pivot timing, something far more structural is building underneath. Commodity prices are not rising because of a short-term supply disruption or a speculative frenzy. They are rising because the world spent a decade starving the physical economy of capital, and now the bill is coming due. This is not a trade. It is a regime change.

The Setup

A commodity supercycle is not a bull market. It is a multi-decade structural shift in the balance between supply and demand, one that takes years to build, years to peak, and reshapes entire economies in the process. The last one ran roughly from the early 2000s through 2011, driven by China’s industrialization. Before that, the 1970s cycle was driven by oil shocks and dollar debasement.

We are in the early-to-middle stages of a new one. The question is not whether it is happening. The question is whether investors have positioned for it, and by almost every measure, they have not.

The setup is unusually clean. Three independent forces, supply destruction, macro backdrop, and geopolitical rewiring, are converging simultaneously. That combination does not happen often. When it does, commodity cycles tend to run longer and harder than consensus expects.

The Deep Dive

Start with supply, because that is where the story begins.

Between 2015 and 2022, the global mining and energy industries went through a prolonged capital starvation. Low commodity prices, ESG pressure from institutional investors, and a general preference for financial assets over physical ones meant that exploration budgets were slashed, new projects were shelved, and existing infrastructure was allowed to age. The industry did not plant the seeds it needed to harvest today.

Copper is the clearest example. It is the metal that electrification runs on, used in everything from EVs to power grids to data center infrastructure. Building a new copper mine from discovery to production takes between 15 and 20 years in the current regulatory environment. The projects that should have been approved in 2010 and 2015 were not. That gap is now structural. Demand from the energy transition is accelerating precisely as the supply pipeline runs dry. No amount of short-term price incentive fixes a 15-year permitting and construction cycle overnight.

The same dynamic, with variations, applies to uranium, lithium, nickel, and thermal coal. The world decided it no longer needed these materials, then discovered it needed them more than ever. The supply side cannot respond quickly enough, and that mismatch is the engine of the supercycle.

Now layer in the macro backdrop.

Commodity supercycles do not run on supply constraints alone. They need a monetary and currency environment that amplifies price moves and sustains the cycle. That environment is now in place.

The U.S. dollar has structural headwinds for the first time in a generation. A fiscal deficit running above 6% of GDP in a non-recessionary environment is not a temporary condition. It is a policy choice with a long tail. When the dollar weakens over a sustained period, commodity prices, which are priced in dollars, rise mechanically. More importantly, a weaker dollar makes commodity-producing emerging markets richer in real terms, stimulating their own demand and investment cycles, which feeds back into global consumption.

Inflation, even at moderated levels, changes the investment calculus for hard assets fundamentally. When money loses purchasing power at 3 to 4% annually rather than 1 to 2%, the opportunity cost of holding physical commodities or commodity-linked equities drops significantly. Real assets become a rational allocation rather than a fringe one. That shift in institutional thinking, from commodities as a tactical trade to commodities as a structural allocation, is still in its early stages. The capital rotation has barely begun.

Then there is geopolitics, and this is where the cycle becomes genuinely different from anything that came before it.

Deglobalization is not a talking point. It is a measurable restructuring of how goods, energy, and raw materials flow around the world. The assumption that underpinned commodity markets for thirty years was that supply could always be sourced from wherever it was cheapest, that a mine in the Democratic Republic of Congo, a refinery in China, and an end user in Germany could all be connected seamlessly through global trade. That assumption is broken.

Friendshoring, sanctions regimes, critical mineral strategies, and the weaponization of supply chains mean that the world is now willing to pay a premium for secure supply over cheap supply. That permanently embeds a risk premium into commodity prices that did not exist before. The energy crisis that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was a preview of how quickly that premium can materialize. Europe discovered in real time what it means to have a supply chain that runs through an adversary.

The critical minerals race amplifies this further. The United States, Europe, Japan, and Australia are all scrambling to build supply chains for the materials that underpin their defense and energy transition agendas. That means government-backed demand that is largely price insensitive, buying strategic stockpiles and signing long-term offtake agreements regardless of spot price. That kind of buyer changes the demand structure of these markets permanently.

The contrarian case deserves honest treatment. Some argue that the energy transition will ultimately destroy demand for fossil fuels faster than supply falls, capping the cycle. Others point to China’s property slowdown as a structural reduction in metals demand that offsets electrification tailwinds. These are real risks. But they underestimate the pace of physical infrastructure buildout required for the transition itself, and they assume a clean, linear shift that history suggests will be messier and slower than modeled.

Conclusion

Commodity supercycles are not exciting in the way tech rallies are exciting. They build slowly, they frustrate early believers, and they tend to be recognized by the mainstream only after the majority of the move has already happened.

That is exactly where we are now. The supply destruction is locked in. The macro backdrop is supportive. The geopolitical rewiring is accelerating. None of these forces reverse quickly, and none of them are priced into equity markets that still allocate a historically low share of capital to real assets and commodity producers.

The investors who do best in this environment will not be the ones who trade it. They will be the ones who treat it as the structural backdrop it is and position accordingly, in copper producers, energy royalties, uranium, and hard asset vehicles that do not require a precise entry point.

The physical world has been underpriced for a decade. That trade is now reversing. The only question is how long it takes for the rest of the market to notice.

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

The Weekly Macro Recap: Stagflation Knocks. Wall Street Shrugs.

Macro Insight — Sun, 31 May 2026 21:00:29 GMT

On Thursday this week, the government told you the economy is growing more slowly than thought, inflation is running at its hottest pace since 2023, and the consumer’s personal income is essentially flat. On Friday, the S&P 500 closed at a record high for the ninth consecutive weekly gain.

If that disconnect unsettles you, it should. The question is not whether the market is wrong. It is what the market is betting on that would make it right.

This Week’s Big Picture

The week was four days long thanks to Memorial Day, but it packed in enough macro data to last a month. Q1 GDP was revised down to 1.6% annualized growth from the initial estimate of 2.0% , a meaningful miss that came alongside the most important inflation reading of the week. Headline PCE for April came in at 3.8% year-over-year, the highest reading since May 2023, while core PCE rose 3.3% annually. Monthly prints were softer than feared, with headline PCE up 0.4% and core up 0.2%, both coming in below consensus.

The softer monthly PCE gave markets the permission they needed to push higher. Reports indicating that the US and Iran have agreed to a 60-day memorandum extending the ceasefire and beginning to restore vessel flows through the Strait of Hormuz, combined with falling energy prices and retreating bond yields, provided broad support to stocks. But the market’s euphoria may be misreading the situation. The 60-day MOU has not yet been signed by President Trump. Iranian forces were still firing ballistic missiles at Kuwait as recently as Thursday. And even a signed deal would take weeks to translate into lower prices at the pump. The inflation numbers driving the Fed’s calculus will not look dramatically different at the June 16-17 meeting.

Meanwhile, the quarter’s real story sits in two numbers nobody wants to talk about in the same breath: 1.6% GDP growth and 3.8% inflation. That is not a healthy economy. That is the early fingerprint of stagflation.

Subscribe now

The Deep Dive: The Stagflation Trade Nobody Wants to Name

There is a specific kind of denial that grips markets when stagflation is approaching. Investors who lived through the 1970s recognize it immediately. Everyone else tends to reach for a reason why this time is different. Right now, the most popular version of that argument is that AI-driven productivity will save us, that the Iran conflict is temporary, and that the soft monthly PCE print proves the worst is behind us. Each of those arguments has merit. None of them fully holds.

Start with the GDP revision. The 0.4 percentage point downward revision from the advance estimate reflected weaker investment and consumer spending. Corporate profits grew just $40.4 billion in Q1, a sharp deceleration from the $246.9 billion gain recorded in Q4 2025. Strip out the inventory swing that drove most of the technical revision, and underlying domestic demand growth still slowed. This is an economy that was already losing momentum before the full energy price shock from the Hormuz disruption fully passed through.

Now layer in the inflation picture. Disposable personal income fell 0.1% in April, while personal consumption expenditures rose 0.5%. The personal saving rate dropped to just 2.6%. Americans are spending more and earning less in real terms. That is not a consumer that has absorbed higher prices comfortably. That is a consumer who is drawing down savings to keep up. And critically, long-run inflation expectations climbed from 3.5% to 3.9% in May, a seven-month high, while year-ahead expectations hit 4.8%. When expectations de-anchor at the long end, the Fed’s job becomes exponentially harder.

This is exactly the trap that newly sworn-in Fed Chair Kevin Warsh walked into last week. His first FOMC meeting is June 16-17, and the framing of his opening statement as chair will be one of the most consequential pieces of Fed communication in years. The committee is already fractured. Three governors dissented at the April meeting in favor of removing the easing bias language. Waller made clear in Frankfurt last week that he sees inflation as broadening and not headed in the right direction. The soft monthly PCE print this week gives Warsh a narrow justification to hold language steady at his debut meeting, avoiding an immediate hawkish rupture. But it does not change the underlying dilemma.

Here is the genuine non-consensus view: the market is treating the soft monthly PCE as evidence that the inflation pulse is peaking. It might be right. But there is a scenario that gets far too little attention, which is that monthly PCE prints stay in the 0.2-0.3% range even as annual readings keep rising because the base effects from early 2025 are still unfolding. In that scenario, headline inflation does not fall back to even 3% until well into 2027. The Fed holds all year, real yields stay elevated, and the multiple compression in equities that a 21x forward P/E implies hasn’t started yet.

The market is betting on the best path through a very narrow gate. Goldman Sachs estimates that AI-related spending will drive roughly 40% of S&P 500 EPS growth this year, with the largest cloud infrastructure companies planning to spend an estimated $670 billion in capex in 2026, more than 90% of their expected cash flows. That bet can absolutely pay off. But it requires sustained corporate earnings strength in an environment where the consumer is weakening, real yields are elevated, and the Fed cannot cut. If even one leg of that stool wobbles, the record-high equity market looks significantly more fragile.

Subscribe now

Looking Ahead

The June 16-17 FOMC meeting is the event that will define the summer. Between now and then, two readings matter most. The May jobs report lands Friday, June 5. A soft number would validate the GDP slowdown signal and give Warsh more room to keep language neutral. A strong number complicates the picture further by suggesting the labor market is holding up even as inflation accelerates, which historically is exactly the combination that forces central banks into painful choices. The May CPI follows on June 11. If monthly inflation stays soft, Warsh can hold without removing the easing bias. If it reruns March or April’s pace, the hawks win at the June meeting and the bond market reprices sharply. The core tension to hold in your mind is this: can the Iran ceasefire hold long enough and firmly enough to pull inflation back down before the Fed is forced to hike into a slowing economy? Right now, the answer is genuinely unknown.

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

Subscribe now

The $4 Trillion Time Bomb Hidden in Plain Sight

Macro Insight — Thu, 28 May 2026 21:15:38 GMT

The most dangerous trades are the ones that work for so long everyone forgets they’re trades. The yen carry trade is one of them. And right now, with the Bank of Japan slowly but deliberately normalizing rates, the question isn’t whether this matters. It’s whether markets have truly reckoned with what happens if it unwinds fast.

The Setup

For roughly three decades, Japan ran the most accommodative monetary policy in the developed world. Rates near zero, then below zero. A central bank that bought everything in sight. A currency that weakened steadily as a consequence.

That created an irresistible opportunity. Borrow in yen at near-zero cost, convert to dollars or euros, deploy into higher-yielding assets, and pocket the spread. U.S. equities, tech stocks, emerging market debt, crypto. The carry trade funded it all, quietly and at scale.

Nobody knows the exact size of the trade, which is precisely what makes it dangerous. Estimates range from hundreds of billions to several trillion dollars in gross exposure. The opacity is by design. Much of it runs through derivatives, offshore accounts, and leveraged structures that don’t show up cleanly in any single dataset.

The thesis here is straightforward: we are in the middle of a structural regime change in Japanese monetary policy, markets have only partially adjusted, and the remaining exposure is large enough to matter.

Subscribe now

The Deep Dive

The summer of 2024 was the warning shot.

In late July, the Bank of Japan raised rates modestly and signaled more to come. The yen surged. Within days, Japanese equities fell roughly 12% in a single session, their worst day since 1987. Global risk assets sold off hard. Crypto dropped sharply. U.S. tech names saw aggressive selling. Credit spreads widened. It lasted about a week before markets stabilized, but the mechanics were impossible to miss: forced deleveraging, margin calls, and the rapid unwinding of yen-funded positions.

Many analysts declared the carry trade “done.” They pointed to the speed of the unwind, the subsequent stabilization, and the fact that yen volatility eventually subsided. The argument was that the most vulnerable positions got flushed out, and what remained was more resilient.

That reading is too convenient.

Here is the problem with declaring the carry trade dead: the incentive structure that created it has not changed enough. Yes, the BOJ has raised rates. But Japanese rates remain among the lowest in the developed world. The interest rate differential between Japan and the United States, while narrower than it was, is still substantial. As long as that differential exists, the trade remains attractive. Capital doesn’t retire just because it got scared once.

What likely happened in 2024 is that the most leveraged and least sophisticated positions unwound. The hot money left. But the structural, longer-duration exposure, the kind embedded in institutional portfolios, currency overlay strategies, and balance sheet hedges, that doesn’t move in a week. It adjusts slowly, and often only when it’s forced to.

The deeper risk isn’t another 2024 repeat. It’s something more disorderly.

Consider the scenario: the BOJ continues tightening, driven by sticky Japanese inflation and political pressure to normalize after decades of monetary experiment. The yen strengthens meaningfully, perhaps toward 130 or even 120 against the dollar, from recent levels above 150. That move, on its own, forces a repricing of yen-denominated liabilities globally. Investors who borrowed in yen now owe more in real terms. They sell assets to cover. And they sell whatever is most liquid, which in a risk-off moment means U.S. equities, high-yield bonds, and anything with a bid.

The amplifying factor is that this doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Global markets are already navigating elevated valuations, stretched credit, and a U.S. fiscal backdrop that offers less of a cushion than it once did. A liquidity shock originating in Japan hits a system that is less able to absorb it.

This is where the broader macro framing matters. The carry trade isn’t just a technical arbitrage. It is a symptom of a world that has been addicted to cheap money for a generation. Japan was simply the most extreme version of that experiment. As it unwinds, it reveals how much of the current asset price architecture was built on the assumption that cheap yen would always be available.

The honest answer is that nobody knows how much exposure remains, how quickly it could move, or precisely what the trigger would be. What we can say is that the risk is asymmetric. The upside of the carry trade, at current differentials, is modest. The downside of a rapid unwind, in a fragile macro environment, is not.

Subscribe now

Conclusion

The yen carry trade matters because it is a global plumbing problem disguised as a currency story.

The 2024 episode proved the transmission mechanism is real and fast. It also proved that markets can absorb a moderate shock with limited lasting damage. But it would be a mistake to extrapolate from that. The 2024 unwind happened when global growth was still resilient, central banks had room to pivot rhetoric quickly, and the initial shock was contained within days. The next episode may not offer those same stabilizers.

For investors, the practical implication is straightforward: watch the yen. When the dollar-yen rate moves sharply lower, meaning the yen strengthens quickly, that is historically a signal of stress in carry-funded positions. It tends to precede broader risk asset volatility by hours, not weeks. It is one of the cleaner real-time indicators of global deleveraging pressure.

The BOJ is not going to crash markets deliberately. But markets that have spent decades borrowing in yen don’t need a dramatic policy error to reprice. They just need the differential to keep narrowing, the yen to keep grinding stronger, and one moment of forced selling to cascade into something larger.

The trade worked for so long everyone forgot it was a trade. That’s usually how the most painful unwinds begin.

Subscribe now

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

The Weekly Macro Recap: The Fed’s Independence Just Became a Trade

Macro Insight — Sun, 24 May 2026 19:59:45 GMT

Kevin Warsh took the oath of office on Friday in the East Room of the White House, becoming the 17th chair of the Federal Reserve. By that same afternoon, consumer sentiment had just printed the worst reading in 74 years of recorded history. If there was ever a week that captured the sheer compression of pressure bearing down on this economy, this was it.

This Week’s Big Picture

Markets spent most of the week suspended between hope and dread, and the dread is winning on points. Trump declared a peace deal with Iran “largely negotiated” and said an announcement was coming shortly, which briefly lit up equity futures and pushed Brent crude off its highs. But by Friday, the U.S. and Iran remained at odds over Tehran’s enriched uranium stockpile and the question of Hormuz tolls, with Secretary of State Rubio telling reporters that “no one in the world is in favor of a tolling system.” That’s not a minor sticking point. It’s the central one.

The macro backdrop that greeted Warsh at his swearing-in ceremony is brutal by any measure. Energy continued its dramatic 2026 run, with the sector posting a roughly 7% weekly gain, lifting its year-to-date return to over 33%, driven by what the IEA has described as a historic global inventory draw. Meanwhile, consumer sentiment fell in May to a record low, with the University of Michigan’s final reading coming in at 44.8, worse than anything recorded during the Great Recession or the peak of pandemic inflation. Sovereign bond markets globally repriced upward, with 30-year UK gilts surging toward 5.78%, the highest level since 1998, as investors concluded that central banks may be further from cutting than they thought just weeks ago.

The week’s narrative, stripped to its core, was simple: a war premium is now deeply embedded in the global inflation outlook, and the new Fed chair is being handed the controls at precisely the worst moment.

Subscribe now

The Deep Dive: The Warsh Problem

Kevin Warsh was sworn in as Federal Reserve chair at the White House on Friday morning, facing surging inflation fueled by the war in Iran. The optics of the ceremony mattered. Trump was effusive, calling Warsh someone who “will go down as one of the truly great chairmen,” while noting he has “abilities that very few people have.” The president did not hide what he wants. For months he has publicly demanded rapid rate cuts, branded Powell a “stubborn mule” and worse, and made clear that a pliant Fed chair was part of the political agenda for 2026.

Warsh, to his credit, has said the right things. In his remarks after being sworn in, he pledged to “lead a reform-oriented Federal Reserve, learning from past successes and mistakes, escaping static frameworks and models and upholding clear standards of integrity and performance.” He has also vowed to preserve the central bank’s independence.

But here is where the story gets genuinely complicated, and why traders should be paying very close attention to the June 16-17 FOMC meeting.

The market has already answered the rate question. CME Group’s FedWatch tool showed a 97% probability that rates remain unchanged at the next policy meeting. That is essentially a consensus. The data makes cutting rates right now almost impossible to justify publicly: year-ahead inflation expectations sit at 4.5% and long-run expectations have climbed to 3.4%, which, while below peak, represents exactly the kind of entrenched expectation the Fed should be fighting, not accommodating.

Yet the political pressure is unlike anything the institution has faced in the modern era. Trump has openly joked about suing Warsh if he does not lower rates, which is not really a joke at all when the legal infrastructure of the Powell harassment was already tested. The Senate confirmed Warsh in a 54-45 vote, the most divisive confirmation in Fed history, which means he arrives with the thinnest possible mandate among legislators who are already watching him closely.

This creates a specific trap. If Warsh cuts rates in the face of 4.5% near-term inflation expectations and near-110 Brent crude, he validates every concern about political capture of monetary policy. Long rates, which are already under pressure globally, would likely reprice further upward. The very cuts Trump wants could paradoxically make borrowing costs worse for the parts of the economy he cares about most: housing, auto loans, small business credit.

If Warsh holds, or worse signals the possibility of hikes, he immediately becomes Trump’s next public enemy. The majority of current Fed policymakers already favor holding steady, with some floating the possibility of a rate hike as the energy shock continues to filter through to services and food prices.

The cleanest read on Warsh is this: he is probably going to hold rates at June and frame it as pragmatic patience, not hawkish aggression. His “reform-oriented” framing gives him cover to be seen as thinking about the institution rather than reacting to politics. But if the Iran deal collapses and crude pushes back toward 115, the calculus flips fast, and Warsh will face a defining choice within his first ninety days on the job: credibility or compliance.

That is the real market risk this summer. Not the rate decision itself, but whether investors continue to believe the Fed is making it on the data.

Looking Ahead

The June 16-17 FOMC meeting is now the dominant calendar event shaping everything else. Warsh’s first press conference as chair will be parsed to an extraordinary degree. Does he signal independence or deference? Does he acknowledge the rate hike optionality that some on the committee have floated?

Separately, watch the Hormuz negotiations closely. A credible ceasefire announcement would immediately reprice crude, consumer sentiment expectations, and Fed rate path probabilities all at once. A collapse in talks would do the opposite. The Iran situation is not a geopolitical sideshow anymore. It is the single variable with the most power to move markets across asset classes. The question is not whether a deal gets done. It is whether the market can keep front-running it indefinitely before one more breakdown exhausts the remaining optimism.

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

Subscribe now

The Weekly Macro Recap: The Market That Refuses to Read the Inflation Report

Macro Insight — Sun, 17 May 2026 20:11:06 GMT

The economy handed investors two inflation shockers this week. The S&P 500 closed at a record high anyway. That disconnect is either the most bullish signal of the year or a setup for a very uncomfortable repricing. Here is the case for both.

This Week’s Big Picture

The week started with a CPI print that should have rattled markets and ended with the Dow reclaiming 50,000 for the first time since February. April CPI came in at 3.8% year-over-year, the highest since May 2023, with core inflation also pressing higher at 2.8% annually and 0.4% on the month, the hottest monthly core reading since January 2025. Then, the day after, wholesale prices detonated: the Producer Price Index surged 1.4% in a single month, the largest gain since March 2022, putting the annual rate at 6%, a level not seen since December 2022.

Both reports screamed pipeline price pressure. And yet equities shrugged them off. Why? Three things held the floor: a sixth consecutive week of strong earnings, with the blended S&P 500 earnings growth rate for Q1 now tracking at 27.7%, well above the 13.1% analysts had penciled in at quarter-end ; a Trump-Xi summit in Beijing that produced tentative language around keeping the Strait of Hormuz open; and a Cisco blowout that reset the AI infrastructure narrative higher. The bulls are betting that earnings are powerful enough to absorb a sticky inflation backdrop. The bears are watching rate hike odds and waiting.

Subscribe now

The Deep Dive: Inflation Is Back, and the Fed Has Nowhere to Go

Let’s be direct about what Tuesday and Wednesday’s data actually mean. This is not a transitory bump. This is inflation with a structural spine.

Yes, gasoline prices have soared roughly 50% since the war with Iran began in late February, and energy now accounts for a meaningful share of headline CPI. That is the geopolitical overlay. But the deeper problem is what is happening underneath. The PPI services index accelerated 1.2% in a single month, the biggest gain since March 2022, with two-thirds of that move coming from trade services, a sign that tariff costs are starting to have a larger structural impact on prices. You cannot wave that away as a Hormuz story.

Real average hourly wages slipped 0.5% for the month and fell 0.3% on an annual basis. That is a real standard-of-living hit landing on consumers who are already stretched after years of above-trend inflation. The economy added 115,000 jobs in April, well above the 55,000 consensus estimate, which was the strongest two-month stretch of job creation since 2024 , but wage growth was soft enough that workers are running in place against prices. The combination of solid employment and accelerating inflation is exactly the scenario that ties the Fed’s hands.

After the latest April meeting, the Fed voted to hold rates with four dissents, the highest number of dissenting votes since 1992, with some regional presidents objecting to language markets read as signaling a next move toward cuts. There is now genuine disagreement inside the FOMC about whether the next move is up or down. Following the PPI print, odds for a rate hike climbed to about 39%, with market pricing pointing to little chance of any rate cuts through the rest of 2026. The Fed has kept its benchmark rate anchored between 3.5% and 3.75% as inflation has proven sticky.

This is the ugly version of the “no landing” scenario. Growth is holding. Inflation is re-accelerating. The Fed cannot cut without green-lighting a wage-price spiral and cannot hike without risking a demand collapse into an already war-taxed consumer. The window for a clean policy exit is closing.

The looming transition to Kevin Warsh at the Fed makes this even more complicated. Warsh has consistently argued for a smaller Fed footprint, less explicit forward guidance, and a greater role for market price discovery, priorities that arrive at a delicate moment as Treasury supply remains elevated and fiscal concerns are becoming harder to ignore. A Warsh Fed inheriting a 3.8% and rising inflation environment would face immediate credibility pressure to tighten rather than simply communicate less. Markets pricing in “no change” through year-end are essentially betting that a new Fed chair will absorb the political heat of doing nothing while inflation climbs. That is a generous assumption.

For your portfolio, the key tell to watch is not the equity market, which is currently in earnings-euphoria mode. Watch the 2-year Treasury yield. If it breaks materially above 4.5%, the rate-hike scenario is getting priced in seriously, and the high-multiple end of the tech trade will feel it first.

Looking Ahead

The central question going into next week is whether markets can sustain record highs while the inflation narrative keeps deteriorating. Tuesday’s University of Michigan consumer sentiment data will matter more than usual as a read on how quickly household psychology is darkening. Fed speakers will be scrutinized for any shift in tone after this week’s double inflation shock. On the geopolitical front, the Iran ceasefire remains the most consequential binary in the market: any sign of resumption of hostilities sends oil back toward $120 and the inflation calculus gets dramatically worse. Watch Brent crude and 2-year Treasury yields as the clearest real-time signals. The earnings tailwind is strong, but it may not be strong enough to outrun a Fed that is running out of excuses to stand still.

Subscribe now

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

The Weekly Macro Recap: Oil’s 15% Crash, a Market at Record Highs, and the Man About to Take Over the Fed

Macro Insight — Sun, 10 May 2026 20:01:51 GMT

Oil swung nearly 20 percentage points in a single week, stocks hit record highs, and the Senate is about to hand a new man the keys to the Federal Reserve. If that sounds like a lot to hold in your head at once, that is because it is.

This week was not about one story. It was about three overlapping crises converging in ways that made the market’s direction genuinely hard to read from hour to hour.

This Week’s Big Picture

The headline number that captured this week best was not a jobs print or an earnings beat. It was the intraday swing in crude oil on Wednesday: WTI crude plunged nearly 15% intraday, marking the largest single-day decline since the COVID-19 market collapse, only to partially claw back those losses by Friday. That kind of volatility is not a market functioning normally. It is a market priced entirely on geopolitical rumor, toggling between two radically different outcomes for global energy supply.

Beneath the oil drama, equities held up remarkably well. The S&P 500 closed higher by 1.5% and the Nasdaq Composite jumped 2% on Wednesday, with both indexes closing at record highs. The bond market told a different story. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield tested its March closing high near 4.42% before retreating modestly to end the week just below 4.40%, and rate markets closely tracked movements in oil prices, as longer-term inflation concerns took a temporary back seat to near-term energy price dynamics. The Fed, meanwhile, held rates steady for the third consecutive meeting of 2026, and its outgoing chair used his final press conference to make clear he is not going anywhere quietly. The through-line connecting all of it: uncertainty has become the base case, and markets are learning to live with it.

The Deep Dive: The Strait of Hormuz and the Market That Cries Wolf

Here is the honest question investors need to sit with: how much of a peace deal do you actually believe?

Normally, hundreds of ships per day would transit the Strait of Hormuz, carrying more than 20% of the world’s oil supply to global markets. On Tuesday, just one ship crossed the strait. On Wednesday, none crossed it. That is the reality on the water, regardless of what diplomats are saying in Islamabad or what Trump is posting on social media. And yet, on Wednesday, oil prices plunged and stocks surged after reports indicated the U.S. believed it was nearing a deal to end the war with Iran. Trump signaled “great progress” in talks, then hours later told the New York Post it was “too soon” to prepare to sign anything. The market moved 15% and then gave back half of that move in the same session.

This is the third time since the ceasefire was first agreed on April 7 that markets have violently repriced on diplomatic optimism, only to find the reality more complicated. Previous efforts to reach a deal have fallen short. Vice President JD Vance, special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner held in-person talks in Islamabad last month, but they left empty-handed. A second round of talks was canceled before U.S. officials even departed. The pattern is consistent: Trump projects momentum, Tehran hedges, and traders get caught leaning the wrong way.

What makes this week’s moves particularly instructive is what they reveal about the structure of the market’s Iran trade. U.S. crude and petroleum exports surged to near-record levels, with total shipments approaching 13 million barrels per day, as global buyers searched for alternatives to Middle Eastern crude supplies. American producers are quietly benefiting from the disruption even as the White House negotiates its end. That dynamic creates a subtle tension in Washington’s incentives that rarely gets discussed: a full Hormuz reopening would deflate energy prices and relieve inflation pressure, but it would also hand a windfall back to OPEC+ at the expense of U.S. producers who are currently printing money.

Citi analysts said they expect broader financial markets to stabilize despite the recent volatility, though the bank warned that the path toward normalization is unlikely to be smooth and could keep oil prices elevated in the months ahead. That is probably the right call, but the range of outcomes is unusually wide. If a genuine framework for reopening the strait is signed and enforced, crude falls hard and fast, inflation cools, and the Fed gets room to move. If talks collapse again, energy prices retest recent highs, stagflation risk intensifies, and the new Fed chair inherits a genuine policy nightmare on day one.

For investors, the playbook here is not to bet on the outcome of negotiations that have now broken down multiple times. It is to hold positions that work in multiple scenarios: energy producers that benefit from a prolonged closure, but also companies whose input costs fall sharply if prices normalize. The worst trade is a binary all-in on resolution, because this conflict has consistently punished conviction in either direction.

Subscribe now

Looking Ahead

The week of May 11 brings the most consequential single event of the year for financial markets: the full Senate confirmation vote on Kevin Warsh. If he is confirmed before May 15, markets will immediately start handicapping how quickly he moves to restructure Fed communication and signal a new rate path. Watch for any statement from Warsh in his first days and hours as chair, because his opening message will set the tone for the rest of 2026.

On the Iran front, the question is simple: does this week’s diplomatic momentum survive contact with reality, or does the pattern repeat and talks stall again? Any return to full-scale hostilities in the Strait sends oil back above $110 and equities meaningfully lower. A credible framework agreement sends crude below $90 and could be the catalyst that finally unlocks the rate cut the market has been waiting for. Both outcomes are live. Position accordingly.

Subscribe now

Thank you for reading The Macro Insight. Your support allows me to keep doing this work.

How to participate: When you use the “Share” button on any post, you’ll get credit for any new subscribers. Simply send the link in a text, email, or share it on social media with friends!

You can also support me through a donation

BTC: bc1qzlpcp6hsxh6dt3v5rpc85gvpks5mjjpdsymjax

Subscribe now

The Macro Insight

The Weekly Macro Recap: The AI Trade Just Sent Its First Real Bill

This Week’s Big Picture

Why Private Markets Are Eating Public Markets

Public markets are shrinking while private capital swells

The Weekly Macro Recap: Record Bank Profits, Falling Inflation, and a Market That Sold Off Anyway

This Week’s Big Picture

The Deep Dive: The Kimi Moment and the $700 Billion Bet

Other Stories Worth Watching

Looking Ahead

The AI Spending Bubble: History’s Best Investment or History’s Biggest Misallocation of Capital?

Intro and summary

The Deep Dive

Conclusion

The Weekly Macro Recap: Oil Just Erased a Month of “Peace.” Your Portfolio Hasn’t Priced It In.

This Week’s Big Picture

The Deep Dive: The Oil Market Is Trading a Peace That No Longer Exists

Other Stories Worth Watching

Looking Ahead

The Weekly Macro Recap: Meta Just Told You the AI Boom Has a Ceiling

This Week’s Big Picture

The Deep Dive: What Meta’s Compute Pivot Actually Tells You

Other Stories Worth Watching

Looking Ahead

H1 2026 Review: The War Ended Faster Than the Fed’s Response To It

The War Nobody Priced Correctly

The Fed’s Accidental Hawk

The Disconnect At Home

What Actually Matters for H2

The Weekly Macro Recap: Wall Street Finally Asked When AI Pays Back

This Week’s Big Picture

The Deep Dive: The Capex Credibility Crisis

Other Stories Worth Watching

Looking Ahead

Fiscal dominance: The Rule That Governed Bond Markets for 40 Years Just Broke

How We Got Here

The Deep Dive

The Bottom Line

The Weekly Macro Recap: The Fed Just Rewrote the Rules

This Week’s Big Picture

The Deep Dive: Warsh Draws His Line

Other Stories Worth Watching

Looking Ahead

The End of Dollar Dominance: Myth or Reality?

The Deep Dive

Conclusion

The Weekly Macro Recap: The Week the Market Had to Choose

This Week’s Big Picture

The Deep Dive: Kevin Warsh Has Nowhere to Hide

Other Stories Worth Watching

Looking Ahead

Six Catalysts That Could Crack The Global Economy

The Deep Dive

1. US Economic Deterioration

2. Fiscal Deterioration and the Debt Wall

3. Commercial Real Estate

4. Energy and Geopolitical Instability

5. Japan and the Carry Trade

6. China

Conclusion

The Weekly Macro Recap: The AI Trade Just Broke

This Week’s Big Picture

The Deep Dive: Broadcom Just Broke the AI Consensus

Other Stories Worth Watching

Looking Ahead

The Commodity Supercycle Is Here

The Setup

The Deep Dive

Conclusion

The Weekly Macro Recap: Stagflation Knocks. Wall Street Shrugs.

This Week’s Big Picture

The Deep Dive: The Stagflation Trade Nobody Wants to Name

Other Stories Worth Watching

Looking Ahead

The $4 Trillion Time Bomb Hidden in Plain Sight

The Setup

The Deep Dive

Conclusion

The Weekly Macro Recap: The Fed’s Independence Just Became a Trade

This Week’s Big Picture